In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CM No. 17442-CII of 2009 and
R.A. No.70 of 2009 in
Civil Revision No.2198 of 2008
Date of decision: August 11, 2009
Pawan Kumar
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Nagar Panchayat and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate with
Mr. Rajinder Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
A.N. Jindal, J
This review petition has been filed in respect of the order dated
2.7.2009 passed by this Court, dismissing the revision petition filed against
the order dated 4.4.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Mansa,
whereby he had accepted the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat and
refused to grant injunction to the petitioner.
The plaintiff-petitioner (herein referred as ‘the petitioner’) filed
the suit regarding the land measuring 15 kanals, situated within the are of
the village Bhikhi, by giving boundaries of the land and stating that he had
inherited the property from Lala Daulat Ram, by way of Will and he is
owner of the same for the reasons that earlier Lala Daulat Ram was in
possession the premises for the last about 120 years and now he in
possession of the same. To the contrary, the Gram Panchayat has set up a
case that the land is a part of Khasra No.341 (total 549 kanals 12 marlas)
which is owned by the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner has nothing to do
with the same.
The petitioner has not denied that the suit land bearing
boundaries, as mentioned in the plaint, is part of Khewat No.1636, Khatoni
No.3269, Khasra No.341 (559-12). The copy of the mutation Annexure P-5
reveals that it is an abadi deh and in possession of whole of the village as
the entries recorded in ‘makbuja bashindagan deh’. The petitioner has
CM No. 17442-CII of 2009 and
R.A. No.70 of 2009 in
Civil Revision No.2198 of 2008 -2-
claimed construction over the property but none of the revenue records
placed on record reveal that he has raised construction and he is in exclusive
possession of this part of the big chunk of land. It is also alleged that the
petitioner has inherited the property from Lala Daulat Ram by way of Will
but the mutation No.9321 dated 28.2.1952 reveals that inheritance of Lala
Daulat Ram was received by Madan Lal, Om Parkash , Shiri Ram and
Pawan Kumar. In this manner also, petitioner cannot be said to be in
exclusive possession of the suit property.
Learned counsel has tried to urge that the Act has excluded
abadi deh from the purview of Shamlat deh. In this regard, I will have to
reproduce the definition of Shamlat deh which reads as under :-
“2. Definitions : In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires –
(a) to (f) xxx xxx xxx
(g) "shamlat deh" includes -
(1) to (4) xxx xxx xxx
(4a) vacant land situate in abadi deh or gorah deh not owned
by any person.”
The aforesaid provisions deals with the land comprised in the
abadi deh being shamlat deh as described under Section 2 (g) (4a) of the
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 as applicable to the
State of Punjab and this Section clearly envisages that the land which is
used and possessed by the village community within abadi deh is included
in the shamlat deh. As such, on scrutiny of the copy of the jamabandi for
the year 2003-04, it transpires that this land is in possession of whole of the
village i.e. in possession of the bashindgan of village Bhikhi, therefore, this
abadi deh certainly falls within the purview of shamlat deh being situated
within abadi deh of the village. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not come
as one of the proprietors of the village but has set up his claim only on the
basis of the possession which fact stands unsupported by any document.
CM No. 17442-CII of 2009 and
R.A. No.70 of 2009 in
Civil Revision No.2198 of 2008 -3-
Thus, taking the case of the petitioner from any angle, I regret
to extend any indulgence to the petitioner while exercising the power of
review.
Resultantly, finding no merits in the petition, the same is
dismissed. However, observations made here-in-above will not in any way
effect the merits of the case.
August 11, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge